I'm trying to come up with a design for CyberSyn that allows trains to be loaded from warehouses with multiple products. At the moment I'm using the wagon modules to limit slots and it works ok up to 3 separate products. Higher than that and I regularly get inserters blocked by items from previous trains - eventually all the inserters get bugged and a wagon doesn't load until I free up one of the inserters.
My current idea is to filter items from the train input so that items with value greater than X are processed by 4 inserters where X is the size of inserter capacity x4. When there is +/- X of the item the filter gets sent to the last two inserters which are size limited to 1 for precise loading. I am toying with having that pair be two way so that you can overload the train and then unload any overflow.
I feel like I'm probably reinventing the wheel here so is there already an accepted solution for this or does anyone have a way to improve on this idea?
Edit: one obstacle is that I don't think this scales up well to multiple carriages if I'm getting demand at the train level. Can you get the demand for a particular car if you're using wagon filtering?

A person was recently asking on how to identify fetichization in yuri. And I gave an answer which I felt I maybe wanted to share on a bigger scale. Mainly because I feel there are many misconceptions and damaging oversimplification of this issues. And I fear too often purity culture is the choice for people as it offers a simple and easy to follow guide to right and wrong in sexuality. And gender essentialism and damaging stigma can fester in it.
Fetichization is a complex line that people often paint wrong. And it is very vibes based, but when done in high ammounts it is definitely a problem on a large scale in a lot of genres. Also women can partake in it to. As no alosexual or certain greys of ace people are trully free from the constructs that make our understanding of sex and atraction.
And there is also the very negative purity culture that in trying to further themselves from fetichization as a whole, reinforces gender esentialism, by creating a false dichotomy in how women and men enjoy sexuality. It's not a problem of "how", but "how much" as the thing is the entitlement inherent to men in patriarchy allows them to completely dehumanize the subjects of their atraction, but that means women if entitled enough can also forget to draw this line. Meaning fetichization is to some degree a part of sexuality as a whole, it is part of sexual enjoyment for everyone.
An example that I think shows the failure in how we understand this issue. Would be "life of Adelle", which my mom, a cis woman, thought was the hotest thing she had ever watched and ended ultra turned on by a movie acussed of being "fetichized". The thing is both things are true to a degree, it is male gazy and fetichized, but a woman also partakes in that when sexually engaging with any person. Though the creation of said movie being super fucked, and the sexualization of minors, makes it even more complex of an issue and hard to discuss (And a whole different thing to talk about on societies obsession and fetichization of teens)
In Bl it is always easy to see when men are being fetichized as you'll see women writers put disfunctional vaginas in mens assholes, you often read descriptions of an asshole being wet and lunbricated on it's own, when assholes don't secrete natural lubricants, and sex depends on good lubrication and dilatation even more than with vaginas.
In the case of GL it's a thing of what is the focus in. How much do they dance arround bisexuality not for actual real representation or ever calling it by the name but to make the women available to men (bisexual rep is often way better in korean manwha), how often they end as "very good friends", or if the point is to make them "pure uwu" which falls into the gender essentialist notion of women being pure in opossition to men (being sexual). These are more or less clear signs, and women are less likely to be doing this (though again, they can). When it comes to sexual stories and porn it's even more complicated to make clear lines, so the following signs are super subjective and less likely to be fully pinpointed on a gender identity (outside of the obvious "they only have sex to train each other for a man"). But I'd say too much focus on boobs, and balloon boobs can be a sign. Too much scissoring as well says a lot. And when I say vibes based, it is what it is: The way they kiss can say a lot, the way they explore eachothers bodies, it's subjective and really hard to actually pin-point.
But in short you are entitled to sexual enjoyment, and that will come with a level of fetichization, no matter gender identity or sexuality. There will always be a need for balance between projection and fetichization and the real humans behind it. And not deconstructed men will easily let their ideas proyected onto women be the only thing that matter.
TLDR: The important thing is to be able to recognize the human behind your sexual projections. But most humans will experience atraction in very similar ways.

Hey there! I'm a seasoned Web Developer and Designer with a knack for bringing ideas to life. My skillsets include WordPress, Next.js, PHP, React, and Vue for Web Development, along with WooCommerce for eCommerce solutions. Additionally, if you need anything simply done with HTML/CSS and JavaScript I can help. I excel at crafting pixel-perfect interfaces using Figma and ensuring seamless user experiences.
Feel free to check out my portfolio at www.behance.net/kipruto
I'm currently available and eager to take on exciting projects, where I can sprinkle some design and development magic! Feel free to reach out to me at [marsh.biz@yahoo.com](mailto:marsh.biz@yahoo.com) to discuss your ideas further. My hourly rate is USD $20, which may vary depending on the project's complexity. However, I'm also open to fixed-budget projects, and I'm willing to negotiate terms. Looking forward to the opportunity to collaborate with you! Thanks!

Hey there! I'm a seasoned Web Developer and Designer with a knack for bringing ideas to life. My skillsets include WordPress, Next.js, PHP, React, and Vue for Web Development, along with WooCommerce for eCommerce solutions. Additionally, if you need anything simply done with HTML/CSS and JavaScript I can help. I excel at crafting pixel-perfect interfaces using Figma and ensuring seamless user experiences.
Feel free to check out my portfolio at www.behance.net/kipruto
I'm currently available and eager to take on exciting projects, where I can sprinkle some design and development magic! Feel free to reach out to me at [marsh.biz@yahoo.com](mailto:marsh.biz@yahoo.com) to discuss your ideas further. My hourly rate is USD $20, which may vary depending on the project's complexity. However, I'm also open to fixed-budget projects, and I'm willing to negotiate terms. Looking forward to the opportunity to collaborate with you! Thanks!

Hey there! I'm a seasoned Web Developer and Designer with a knack for bringing ideas to life. My skillsets include WordPress, Next.js, PHP, React, and Vue for Web Development, along with WooCommerce for eCommerce solutions. Additionally, if you need anything simply done with HTML/CSS and JavaScript I can help. I excel at crafting pixel-perfect interfaces using Figma and ensuring seamless user experiences.
Feel free to check out my portfolio at www.behance.net/kipruto
I'm currently available and eager to take on exciting projects, where I can sprinkle some design and development magic! Feel free to reach out to me at [marsh.biz@yahoo.com](mailto:marsh.biz@yahoo.com) to discuss your ideas further. My hourly rate is USD $20, which may vary depending on the project's complexity. However, I'm also open to fixed-budget projects, and I'm willing to negotiate terms. Looking forward to the opportunity to collaborate with you! Thanks!

Hi, my name is Jay and I'm currently located in Oklahoma (CST/GMT-6).

PORTFOLIO

With a degree in accounting and roughly a decade of full-time experience managing businesses ranging from startups to publicly traded corporations, not only do I come with a better understanding of your product needs outside of just the code, but I can help you plan your project in a way that makes sense for you or your business, including:

• Tech/idea feasibility and advice
• Time/cost/benefit analysis regarding different approaches
• Product release stages and planning (including which might be necessary)
  • MVP (minimum viable product/proof of concept)
  • beta
  • alpha
  • full release
• All initial discussion and advice comes free of charge. Not a penny is accrued until a contract is signed.

Skills and Experience

I have been programming for 9 years, freelancing for 8, and working full-time as a Software Engineer for 6. All skills listed come from successful professional experience and represent technologies I'm fully comfortable building from scratch and deploying (in no particular order).

• Frameworks
  • React for web
  • React Native and Expo for mobile and web
    • See my most recent expo project here with both web and mobile functionality
  • Native iOS/macOS/Android
  • .NET, both for APIs and Windows applications/automation
  • Microsoft Office applications/automation
  • Classic ASP
• Languages
  • Typescript
  • Javascript
  • Swift
  • C#
  • C++
  • VBA/VBScript
  • PHP
  • Python
• Database Technologies
  
  • SQL
  • MongoDB/NoSql
  • GraphQL
  • Third party solutions like FireBase and AWS
• Previous Project Examples
  
  • iOS/Swift security framework
  • Product/venue revue and rating app/website
  • Movie scene location finder and shot replicator camera image overlay
  • Job tracking and inventory management app/website for moving companies with QR generation, printing, and scanning for boxes
  • Native iOS and Android buy/sell app for luxury watches
  • Social media apps with posts, comments, likes, friends, follows, #hashtags, @user tags, and live chat
  • Native iOS chatroulette/omegle clone
  • Farm harvest tracker with CSV exports
  • Pharmacy price tracker with chat between pharmacists and customers

Work and Availability

I can work with any time zone (located in US Central) and offer both hourly rate contracts and fixed-quote contracts.

• How hourly contracts work $60 USD
  • Higher hourly rates come with higher familiarity of the project technology
  • Fairly simple contract outlining app concept and hourly rate
  • Product and codebase are available to you throughout the project
  • Invoices are sent on a regular schedule
    • Time is tracked online and a detailed report is sent with each invoice
• How fixed/quote-based contracts work
  • More initial conversation/planning required in order to:
    • compile a quote price
    • outline in-depth list of deliverable features on the contract
  • Material scope/feature changes will require contract amendments
  • 3 payments due at start, midpoint/MVP, and completion
    • Product available for testing at milestones, code made available after final payment
• If you have a hard set budget...
  • ...and are comfortable disclosing it, I can work with you on outlining a version of your product that can be properly built within that budget, even if that includes helping you find other vendors more suited for your price range.

Contact Me

You can reach me here on Reddit, through my website, or by email at jay@doan.works

The tensions with Opposing Empire have gone beyond mere mutual enmity. This is a conflict of economies, ideologies, and clandestine efforts, fought across our empires in the hearts and minds of our citizens. With some carelessness, or perhaps deliberate actions, it could quickly become a full-fledged military conflict.
^{(Note: this is a sneak peak into a larger Diplomacy DLC concept I am designing. Also disclaimer: I am not a game designer, I intentionally did not provide numbers, just ideas! Feel free to suggest or criticize.})
When two empires are Rivals a while, both sides will have the option to escalate the Rivalry into a Cold War, which costs Influence. If either side does this, a Situation that is shared and progressed by both sides is created. This situation is intended to provide more RP and mechanical freedom for empires to either diplomatically mend relations, prepare a leadup to war, or perhaps make gains without resorting to warfare.
Cold Wars, like many situations currently in the game, operate on a line between two endpoints, representing the tensions between the two empires: Reconciliation (-100) to War (100).
By default, the Situation will start at 0 and remain stagnant in the middle. Both sides will have access to four Approaches which have different bonuses and effects on the Situation:

• Seek De-Escalation: costs Unity to upkeep. Increases Opinion of the opposing empire, and progresses the Situation towards Reconciliation. (Our simmering conflict with Opposing Empire must be reconsidered. We will extend diplomatic tendrils in hopes of reducing tensions and reconciling our two empires.)
• Maintain Status Quo: costs no upkeep, has no effect. (The current friction with Opposing Empire works to our advantage. We will focus on our own affairs.)
• Clandestine Effort: costs low Energy Creds to upkeep. Moderately decreases the cost of running Spy Operations in the target empire and slightly increases their effectiveness. Slowly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have no desire for a large scale armed conflict with Opposing Empire at this time- instead, we will use... other methods to improve our position.)
• Prepare for Hostilities: costs more Energy Creds to upkeep. Increases Military Ship and Defense Platform build speed, and more quickly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have had enough of the thinly veiled hostilities with Opposing Empire. War is inevitable- and we will lay the groundwork for victory!)

Progress: there are also other factors which will influence the progress of this situation:

• Either side being Militarist or Xenophobe will add base progress towards War, increased if Fanatic.
• Insults will bump the scale towards War.
• Military buildup/border friction, as well as the currently existing Conduct Fleet Exercises event, will move the scale towards War.
• The opinion of either side decreasing further (ex. Harm Relations) will move the scale towards War- this also means a 3rd party could use Spy operations, like the existing Diplomatic Incident or Smear Campaign, to push the outbreak of hostilities!
• New Cassus Belli gained by either side against the other will push the scale towards War- for example, taking a Civic that grants CB, or becoming a Hegemon. So will Declaring War on a Vassal or Ally (provided this doesn't immediately pull the empire in).
• HOWEVER:
• Either side being Pacifist or Xenophile will add base progress towards Reconciliation, increased if Fanatic.
• Cassus Belli becoming invalid will push the scale towards Reconciliation- for example, Impose Ideology becomes invalid if the target adopts matching Ethics.
• Improving Relations by any means will move the scale towards Reconciliation. Eventually, Embassies and other Diplomatic actions can end the Cold War.
• De-Escalation can be traded under Actions- normally, Rival AI empires will never be willing to trade, but an exception can be made here, to for example allow one side to Trade systems, resources, etc as concessions in exchange for X progress towards De-Escalation. The AI may offer such deals if Inferior or Pathetic, and may request concessions to reduce tensions if Superior or Overwhelming.

Events: as with most Situations, the Cold War could feature various events for RP and mechanical purposes. Here are some examples I thought up:

• Fraternization with the Enemy (either empire is some degree of Spiritualist, Xenophile or Pacifist): Despite the tensions with Opposing Empire, news reports and viral videos have recently been circulating of groups of both Our Species and Their Species activists united in song and demonstration on multiple planets. Apparently, these individuals seek an end to the hostility between our empires.
  • [Support these noble and righteous souls.] - bumps the scale towards Reconciliation. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the corresponding Ethic.
  • [Ignore these misguided fools.] - situation does not change. Gain temporary Happiness debuff for pops of the the responsible Ethic.
  • (Militarist, Xenophobe, or Authoritarian) - [Arrest as many of the wicked traitors as we can identify!] - costs Influence, bumps the scale towards War. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the Ethic you used to take this choice.
• Arms Race Breakthrough (is currently using the Prepare for Hostilities approach, increased chance if Materialist or Technocracy): Amidst the large-scale preparations for possible conflict with Opposing Empire, a small team of scientists has independently developed a new military technology and presented it to our government for use.
  • [Excellent.] - bumps the scale towards War, and gain a low-mid tier military tech that was not yet researched. If no valid options, gain some Engineering research instead.
• Pro-War Rally (has any Xenophobe or Militarist leader): Recently, in front of massive crowds on Planet Name, Leader Name delivered a rousing speech extolling the glorious virtues of Our Empire and denouncing the horrific threat presented by Opposing Empire. It would seem many have been swept up in this pro-war fervor and are demanding action from our government. However, foreign emissaries and more moderate elements have cautioned against supporting such explosive, radical rhetoric.
  • [We stand with Leader Name! To war!] - bumps the scale towards War, changes our approach to Prepare for Hostilities if it isn't already, and gain Unity and temporary Ethics Attraction to Leader Name's Ethics. BUT reduces the Opinion of Opposing Empire and any empires Cordial or friendlier to them.
  • [Heads must be kept cool, and Leader Name must be reprimanded.] - costs Influence, but the situation does not change.

And now, for the conclusions of the situation:
Reconciliation Finisher (or if empires somehow become overlord/vassal or allies via external circumstances)
Both Empires get the Event: De-Escalation Successful
In a significant diplomatic achievement, the heated tensions with Opposing Empire have been comprehensively defused! Perhaps this will pave the way for friendlier relations and better days ahead.
If the Situation reaches Reconciliation, the Cold War and Rivalry will immediately be ended, with all their bonuses and effects. Both empires will gain a moderate lump sum of Influence and Unity, as well as a small burst of increased Opinion for each other.

• [That was a close one.] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [A glorious day!] - the rewards are increased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Disappointing.] - the rewards are decreased

War Finisher (or if empires are pulled in by other factors)
Both Empires get the Event: Cold War Turns Hot
The heated tensions with Opposing Empire have ignited! Negotiations have broken down, and fierce border skirmishes have erupted. The truth is now undeniable: we are at war.
If the Situation reaches War, the Cold War and Rivalry will transform into an actual, normal war. Both empires will gain a small lump sum of Influence and Unity and will have a window to pick from their available Cassus Belli and call in allies before the battle begins.

• [To battle stations!] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [Well, we tried...] - the rewards are decreased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Long have we waited for this moment!] - the rewards are increased

And that's all I've got for you all today. Thanks for reading and please send any suggestions or feedback! Here's a bonus: a new achievement based on the irl Soviet Colonel who may have saved the world
Legacy of S'tann Pet'rovv: De-Escalate a Cold War after tensions had at one point reached 95 or higher.

Hi all,
I've recently turned to optimizing my workflow and decided to give JetBrains another shot since being forced the use them at my first job when I didn't really understand what I was doing.
Most of the code I write is C#, I currently use VisualStudio and was pretty comfortable with that for a long while. But due to recent buggy releases and slowdowns I've gotten quite frustrated with it and I'm debating a switch to Rider.
I've also recently picked up Go in my free time and have dabbled into a bit of Rust as well. I haven't had a great time with these languages using VSCode (especially Go). I'm already sold on DataGrip as I like it a LOT more than SSMS or DBeaver.
I'm planning on picking up Vim motions as well and I've heard a lot of great things about the Idea-Vim plugin.
So my questions are as follows:

• Is it possible to share keymaps between IDE's and have the same shortcut experience on all of them ?
• How would you rate the GoLand experience, especially build/testing/debugging and LSP?
• Which product would be the best when writing Go+HTMX and Hugo static sites (WebStorm?)
• How is the debugging experience in Rider, Visual Studio has a really powerful debugger with a lot of really cool features, but the only thing I'd really miss is conditional breakpoints, watch groups and the immediate window.
• What is the current state of Resharper? I didn't really like it back in 2019 and am currently very satisfied with Roslynator and SonarLint in VS
• If anybody has Idea-Vim experience, I'd love to hear it. How does it integrate across IDE's? How close to the real thing is it, etc...

If anybody could answer any of these I'd be really grateful. Thank you all in advance and hope to be a part of the community!

So I got 90% in jee and 70% in boards I'm ews category up state plz suggest me some college nobody knows about colleges in my family and I don't have any idea plzz help me otherwise I'll have to vit in which I got 35k rank which will destroy my life coz I'll have to take education loan for it

Before I get things started, I’d like to say that I(22M) am from a rather conservative country, I am a virgin, and this is my first relationship.
It’s been around 6 months since I started dating my 22F girlfriend, we have a 1000km distance, but we’re both students and are not financially independent yet. I just needed some advice as I just feel like this keeps going around my head and I’d like to articulate it better for myself while receiving advice from the more experienced people on this subreddit.
To start things off, This isn’t my girlfriend’s first relationship and she’s been in relationships for a while now, she started dating somewhat young (for my country at least, or maybe I have been too closed off to realize) and she said she’s had sex from a year or two and has had a few ex-boyfriends she’s mentioned to me before whom she slept with and she’s also had a few friends with benefits (I found out about this later)..
I knew she wasn’t a virgin before we started dating and It does not matter to me if she wasn’t a virgin, because she’s dating me and choosing me and I do have some self-confidence and am a bit secure with who I am to let it bother me much.
I love her a lot and would love if this relationship lasted a long time and even hope to marry her and build a home with her someday.
Around 2 months back, she told me that she did not want to sleep with me till we got married and when I first heard this, I was quite taken aback, especially since I didn’t think she cared much about that due to her history and I don’t care much about it either (I’ve had my share of mental issues and felt that it wouldn’t be right to date anyone with those level of issues, so decided to not date anyone till I met her..).
This turned into a somewhat large argument and we were supposed to have a few days free and were planning on talking and video calling for those days, but we ended up arguing a bit, I was just feeling very mentally messed up and trying to process everything and I did get a bit cold and kind of withdrew into myself.
When I asked her for the reason, she said she didn’t know and then later said that she wanted a serious relationship with me and “I’m not like her playboy ex-boyfriends”and that she “doesn’t want to introduce me as a person she slept with to her parents” and wants to “respect them by not sleeping with me” while these ideas aren’t too uncommon amongst the younger generation of my country, I didn’t think she would have such thoughts because then why do it with a few others and then not with me? (I don’t think I am entitled to sleep with her, nor do I feel it’s my right or anything like that, I wouldn’t want her to do anything with me if she doesn’t wish to, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I knew I forced someone into having sex with me when they don’t want to.)
When we went further into this discussion, she asked me if sex was something so important to me and if I just wanted her for her body and not for who she is and that kind of things, which made little sense to me, as why would I be in a LDR if I just wanted sex?
Anyways, after a while, she kept apologizing and was like if you want to we can do it. (and that wasn’t the conclusion I wanted, I just wanted her to tell me some real reason why she doesn’t want to do anything with me, I forgot to mention, but she called our relationship an online one and that hurt me quite a bit (she later said that she didn’t mean it that way and meant it as a LDR).
After a day or two, I kind of decided to just not think about it, because she just kept apologizing and I felt like I was hurting her by continuing the topic.
A few weeks after she talks about the house of some guy she was “more than friends with” I didn’t know about this before and thought she only had sex in relationships (again, my country is quite conservative and maybe I am too closed off** to have had considered this before) and that kind of got to me, because whenever she said anything about people wanting her only for her body and that kind of stuff, I kind of felt like she was coerced into sleeping with her ex-boyfriends (I understand that I might have tried to rationalize what was going on and made up stories), and imo a friends with benefits is where you just have sex and it’s quite consensual, to say the least.
Now, a week back, I just wanted to bring this topic up again and I kind of messed up with the timing as we both were quite tired and I hadn’t slept properly in a while.. at the same time, I was feeling a bit guilty because I did fantasize about sleeping with her when we met even though I agreed to her boundary.
She told me she was confused and why I still thought about this topic and stuff like that and she asked me if I “didn’t like anything else about her apart from her body” and “what would I do if she had any physical deformities and she couldn’t have sex with me”( she said this when we first spoke on this too), she then said that she isn’t a touch person like I am and me thinking about such things out of the blue is quite strange to her.
All this has kind of led me to feel like I am ugly (which I don’t feel anymore, apart from the occasional intrusive thought) and whether she doesn’t want to sleep with me because she thinks I’m not the right person for her or maybe she thinks I am not good enough and so on...
She later said that she doesn’t want to have sex because she hates her body and how she looks and that she is carrying trauma from her past relationships because her ex-boyfriends slept with her and left her, I obviously understand this.. till a few days later she again said that we wouldn’t have sex till marriage. So I don’t know what’s really going on in her mind. Is she uncomfortable with me?
I understand that this might be a “Me” problem or something I am doing wrong or just overthinking and over analysing things and ending up with a wrong conclusion. I’m just confused I guess.
TLDR: My long-distance girlfriend doesn’t want to have sex with me even though she has had sex before (She later (after a month, when asked) said it is because she hates her body*). I felt hurt by this and it makes me feel very unwanted. I love her and I want to be with her, but I keep thinking about this and it’s making me lose my self-esteem and confidence as I feel like I am not good enough.
*I felt not including this in the TLDR would make it seem as though I am only telling my side of the story
**by closed off I mean I’m quite introverted and just stay home a lot and my parents are somewhat strict too (her parents are much stricter btw)..
I don’t know what I should do, I love her and I understand where she’s coming from, but this is kind of eating at me, whenever I feel low or am having a slightly bad mental health day my feelings of being not good enough or not the right person or that I am not wanted keeps creeping back up and starts shaving away at my self-esteem and the more I think about it the worse I feel.
Should I just stop thinking about this and pretend everything is okay with me? Am I not understanding enough? Do you think I can do something better? Should I talk about this topic again? (my girlfriend has exams for a few weeks now, so I would most likely hold off the topic until then, at the same time I might go to see her in June and I don’t know how that would work if we have such a conversation before this.)

Hi everyone!
I joined slowly yesterday and I think its a very refreshing idea and awesome app. Granted, I do use the web version since I dont have a smartphone anymore but still it is great. A bit about me I'm from London F25 and I'm looking to make friends and talk to people. I'm really into anime and manga and I love movies, books, rollerblading, volunteering and software development. I also edit YT videos in my spare time so I watch alot of AMVs which helps me learn about editing. Whether you share the same hobbies or not I would still love to talk with you so feel free to reach out at anytime! I dont really mind any letter length that much I appreciate the fact that you took the time to write but if the letter is longer that would be even nicer. So thanks again and this is my slowly ID: NBVWY2X

My idea is to use the camera in a pair of bluetooth glasses, rather than the camera in the phone. In this way I can use the video functionality of gpt-o without having to hold the phone wherever I go.
Imagine how helpful this would be when you have to repair a bike and you can ask questions, as you go along with the work. And gpt can see exactly everything you see.
Imagine how helpful when learning to cook.
And imagine if you are travelling as a tourist and you can ask questions on any monuments you see or any items you see in a museum. And your hands are completely free.
Ideally the model of glasses should be as cheap as possible, while still doing the minimum task of recording video and sending it to the phone via bluetooth. Any suggestions on what model could be used for this?
Consider also having a pair of bluetooth headphones like sony wh-1000xm5, so that you can hear gpt directly in your ears, while the phone is in your pocket. That headphones also remove external noise when walking outdoor and have a mic than sends your voice to the phone via bluetooth.
I think this setup would be very cool to have. What do you think?

I have a concept for a short story but as I don't intend to develop it I'll leave the idea here. A religious fanatic woman who was born with a stunted uterus wants to end all "abortionist women" in the name of God. Despite this, she adopted her sister's daughter who died in childbirth. Becoming increasingly fanatical, the woman finds a book in the attic that belonged to her gypsy grandmother. In this book there is a charm to make a pact with an angel and get a wish granted. To do this, she has to mix bizarre ingredients and drink this potion at a crossroads. And to gets rid of all the "abortionist women" she makes this potion and goes to the crossroads. At this crossroads she makes the pact with the angel and wakes up the next day at home. The next day she is watching TV talking about an abortion clinic, and sees that all the women are dying around that. She starts to celebrate, but sees that women are dying all over the world, and wonders what she did wrong. Then the angel appears and reveals that his official name is Luficer. He also explains that because a woman's own uterus tends to naturally expel a fertilized egg, most women can be considered "abortionists." Including the daughter she adopted.

This thread is for individual style questions that you may have, especially those that don't warrant their own thread. We all want a diversified opinion, so feel free to answer any questions (of which you know the answer).
To get the best responses, remember that people cannot; look into your wardrobe, know what style you normally like or what words like affordable or practical mean to you so please include any relevant details such as your budget, where you live, what stores are available to you, etc.
Example questions:

• Are there any basic crewneck white t-shirts that are opaque and do not have cap sleeves for <$25 available in Australia?
• Is this dress and shoes suitable for an evening wedding with a cocktail dress code taking place in a [venue type]?
• If I like the outfits in this [imgur album / pinterest board], what are some specific items I can look into to start dressing like that, and brands with this look that carry plus sizes?
• Does this outfit look neater with the pants cuffed or uncuffed?

If you'd like to include a picture, you can now post pictures directly in the comments, without having to link an imgur album.

Introduction

In this post, we'll be discussing something called "Virtue Ethics." This is a normative theory of ethics that's most associated with Aristotle, though has in recent times experienced a resurgence of sorts from modern philosophers, some of whom have tweaked and modified it, and in doing so have created different branches on this tree of moral theory. We will be comparing these different flavors of Virtue Ethics to that of the New Testament's, pointing out where they're similar, as well as highlighting where the NT differs (and is actually superior) from the heathens' views.
I want to preface all this with a verse and a warning:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

The entire Bible, over and over again, warns against syncretism. It's a running theme throughout to condemn the practice, with this verse being one of the more explicit ones to do so.
Mapping the ideas of Pagans (and especially Greek philosophers) onto the Scriptures has always resulted in people severely misinterpreting the Bible, as looking at the Word of God through a Hellenistic lens is and always has been extremely innapropiate to the author's original intent.
Whenever Greek philosophy or ideas are referenced, they're always portrayed in a bad light or otherwise used to make a point. Examples of the latter could be found in the apostle Paul's writings, as he was a fully educated Roman citizen of his day, and so he made use of known Hellenestic philosophy and literature (that he would have been familiar with) by redefining their terms and ideas in a way that would be consistent with the theology of his own religion. The apostle Peter did the same within his own epistles whenever he mentioned "Tartarus," the abyss/prison for certain disobedient angels that rebelled against God, despite the fact that the word has its roots in Greek mythology and not Hebrew religion (though, the belief that there were a group of spiritual beings that rebelled against the highest authority in the heavens was one technically shared between the two ancient cultures; even if the parties involved were vastly different, as well as the contexts of the rebellion itself).
The affect Hellenstic philosophy has had on the way people think (even subconsciously) can still be felt to this day, and can be seen in the confusion modern "Christianity" has brought on through its adoption of Gnostic teachings such as Dualism or the inherently fatalistic views that many unknowingly hold due to the error of Classical Theism.
While yes, I will be commending the heathen (unbeliever) whenever they are right with their ideas as pertaining to this subject, I will also show where they are wrong.
Let's begin.

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

First, we need to define some terms and point out the differences between this view and others within the larger debate of normative ethics.
There are three major approaches in normative ethics, those being: Consequentalism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. The following are definitions of the terms:
Consequentialism – a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Deontology – theories where an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Virtue Ethics – theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. The virtue ethicist would argue that actions themselves, while important, aren't as important as the character behind them. To the virtue ethicist, consequences are also important, but they would say that good consequences ultimately flow from a virtuous character who has made virtuous decisions. Theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation, instead teaching that the best decisions can vary based on context, and that there are only some actions that would be universally evil, only because those actions could never flow from a virtuous character in the first place (e.g., rape).
Aristotle's idea of ethics is in an important respect different from most people's, especially today. Heirs as we are to Kant’s idea of duty – there is a right thing that one ought to do, as rational beings who respect other persons – and to Mill’s idea of utility – the right thing to do is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number – most of us see ethics as concerned with actions. "The function of ethics is to help me see what I ought to do in a given situation," the modern says. Aristotle’s approach was different. His ethic is not so much concerned about helping us to see what we ought to do, as about what sort of person we ought to be.
Aristotle was concerned with character, and with the things that go to make up good and bad character; virtues and vices. His sort of ethic does not look at our action to see if it fulfils our duty, or produces a certain outcome, such as the greatest good of the greatest number, and therefore merits approval. Instead, it looks at us; at the character behind the actions, to see whether we merit approval.
Comparing Virtue Ethics with philosophies such as Deontology and Consequentialism, we are able to divide ethical theories into two kinds; act-centered theories and agent-centered theories. Kant’s (Deontological) and Mill’s (Utilitarian) approaches are act-centered, because they concern themselves with our actions, whilst Aristotle’s is agent-centered because it concerns itself with the character of a person, which in his view was ourselves and our own dispositions that prompt our actions.
Both approaches have ardent present-day advocates, and so both are alive and well. Virtue Ethicists are dissatisfied with the answers ‘modern’ act-centered philosophy offers, and look for a more flexible, person-centered approach that takes more account of the subtle varieties of human motivation. Those in this camp see ethics as being about people – moral agents – rather than merely about actions. Of course, your actions matter. But, for Aristotle and his present day advocates alike, they matter as expressions of the kind of person you are. They indicate such qualities as kindness, fairness, compassion, and so on, and it is these qualities and their corresponding vices that it is the business of ethics to approve or disapprove.
All this seems simple and uncontroversial; there are two ways of looking at an action to evaluate it morally. You can take the action in isolation and judge it, or take the agent and judge him or her.
Virtue ethicists argue that act-centered ethics are narrow and bloodless. What is needed is a richer moral vocabulary than just ‘right and wrong’. There are subtle but important differences between actions that are good because they are kind and those that are good because they are generous, and those that are good because they are just. Likewise, there are subtle but important differences between actions that are bad because they are selfish and those that are bad because they are cruel and those that are bad because they are unfair. These, and many other, distinctions are lost when we talk simply about doing one’s duty, or promoting utility. Questions of motive and of character are lost, in these asceptic terms. Modern moral philosophy won’t do: it is cold, technical and insensitive to the many kinds and degrees of value expressed in human actions. Ethics is more than just thought experiments and hypotheticals about what would be the right course of action to take in any given situation we might conjure up from the comfort of our armchair. Ethics is about doing, and about context and character.

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

Virtue Ethics has has been developed in two main directions: Eudaimonism, and agent-based theories.
Eudaimonism (Aristotle's view) bases virtues in human flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one’s distinctive function well. In the case of humans, Aristotle argued that our distinctive function is reasoning, and so the life “worth living” is one which we reason well. He also believed that only free men in the upper classes of society (i.e., the aristocrats) could excel in virtue and eschew vice, being that such men had greater access to the means in accomplishing this task as they had the wealth and resources to better perform their distinctive function of 'reasoning,' and thus "live well." For the Eudaimonian, inner dispositions are what one ought to focus on in order to cultivate virtuous traits, and thus a virtuous character.
In contrast, an agent-based theory emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-sense intuitions that we as observers judge to be admirable traits in other people. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable, such as benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc., and we can identify these by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. Agent-based theories also state that the motivations and intentions behind an action are ultimately what determine whether or not said action is actually virtuous. Whereas Eudaimonism understands the moral life in terms of inner dispositions or proclivities to act in certain ways (whether righteous or wicked, just or unjust, kind or cruel, etc.), agent-based theories are more radical in that their evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions, that is, what the motivations and intents are of a person.
[Note: While both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories are both agent-centered, Eudaimonism is not to be confused with an agent-based theory. Both branches concern themselves more with agents rather than acts themselves, but Eudamonism focuses on the self to improve whereas the agent-based theory focuses on others to improve.]

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

Firstly, Eudaimonism provides a self-centered conception of ethics because "human flourishing" (here defined as simply fulfilling our base function as humans, which is "reason" according to this view) is seen as an end in itself and does not sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make oneself happier or "reason well."
Secondly, both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories also don't provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” Who is a virtuous person? Who is the first or universal exemplar?
Lastly, the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors beyond a person’s control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame of the person? For the Eudaimonian, one ought to be born into a status of privilege if they wish to excel in being virtuous. For the proponent of an agent-based theory, one ought to be born into a society or family with good role models and preferably be raised by such, else they have no moral exemplars to emulate.

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

The New Testament authors didn’t sit down and do a self-consciously philosophical exercise, for this was not what they were concerned with. They were concerned with giving practical instruction to disciples of the faith, and merely trying to express the ethical implications of their spiritual experience. That being said, we know the apostle Paul was familiar with the writings of Aristotle. We can actually identify places where Paul displays knowledge of Aristotle and incorporates some of the philosopher's ideas into his own epistles. Before we do this, however, it's important we refute common misnomers about what the Bible teaches concerning ethics in general.
You probably have heard many attack the ethics of the New Testament as being primitive and simplistic. "God dictates universal commands to follow: 'do not lie,' do 'not divorce,' 'do not insult.' And the only motivating factor is escaping hellfire and obtaining the reward of eternal pleasure." But in reality, this is a gross misrepresentation of the ethics laid out in the NT. I will argue the NT advocates for a form of virtue ethics, instead of claiming the NT contains a form of deontic ethics, as it is so often assumed.
Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the most influential virtue ethicists of the 20th century. Her work helped to revive virtue ethics in the modern era, however she also criticized the ethics of the Bible for promoting a form of ethics different than what Aristotle promoted:
"...between aristotle and us came Christianity, with its law conception of ethics. For Christianity derived its ethical notions from the Torah. (One might be inclined to think that a law conception of ethics could arise only among people who accepted an allegedly divine positive law..." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
We've already dealt with the issue of the Torah in another post. The Torah is not laying down moral laws, but describing justice in the form of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. But does the New Testament teach a deontic form of ethics? Anscombe might appear justified in her claim, as some "Christian" theologians have explicitly taught the ethics of the NT is deontic.
However, other theologians have argued the ethics of the NT is best characterized as a form of virtue ethics. In a study of the NT, we'll support this notion. As noted earlier, one of the central features of this approach to ethics is that the aim of ethics should be on living a virtuous life. Other forms of ethics focus on directing actions when confronted with a moral dilemma, but for virtue ethics every action is a moral or immoral action because all of our actions contribute or do not contribute to living a virtuous life. In other words, for a virtue ethicist, everything we do will contribute to living a fulfilled life. Now, the NT promotes a similar idea with a slight modification. The NT changes the distinctictive function and purpose for man in Eudaimonism from "reasoning" to loving God and others instead, and thus "living well" is changed from self-centered 'flourshing' (as defined by Aristotle) to glorifying God instead. The apostles taught everything we do contributes to living a life that glorifies God:

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Corinthians 10:31
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."-Colossians 3:17

So we see the same idea in Paul, that everything we do can be seen as a moral or immoral action. Everything we do should be seen as contributing to living a life that glorifies god or not. As a believer, the aim is not just doing good actions to avoid punishments, but to see everything we do as glorifying God. On secular virtue ethics, all our actions are either advancing a good life or not: nourishing your body contributes to living a good life. In a Biblical context: taking the time to properly dress contributes to living a good life, and not giving into the sin of sloth. So all our actions can be moral actions in this context, and so likewise for Paul and Jesus, all we do can contribute to living a life that glorifies God.
Since God made our bodies to thrive and enjoy life, we should nourish our bodies so we can thrive as God intended for our bodies to do, thus ultimately glorifying Him. Since we were created to experience and feel enjoyment, laughing and enjoying things throughout life glorifies God as well since we're experiencing emotions that God created to be experienced. Everything we do should be to glorify God, and often all that is is living our lives in the way that they were intended to be lived. Biblical ethics is very much more than merely performing right actions, but living a virtuous life that brings glory to God.
As Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."-Matthew 22:37b

It is also important to focus on what it means to love, which is an important aspect of what it means to be a believer. Paul makes the radical claim that to love is the entirety of the law of God:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

Jesus also taught that to love God and love others were the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-31, Matt. 22:34-40). He also extends the commandment to love beyond one's brethren, and to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Loving those around us is central to what it means to be a believer (John 13:34; 15:12-17, Rom. 12:10; 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1-8; 16:14, 2 Cor. 8:8, Eph. 4:2; 5:2, Phili. 1:9, Heb. 10:24, Jam. 2:8, 1 Pet. 1:22, 1 John 2:10; 3:23).
One might suggest this is no different than the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," or a Kantian rule: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." In other words, "to live well is to perform good deeds or actions and nothing more." But an important point about loving someone is it cannot be done through actions alone. For example, one could buy a gift for their spouse to cheer them up. However, one could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions without any love for the person. One could donate to charity because it is the right thing to do, and not because she cares for the people who would benefit. In such scenarios, they can be seen as idolizing moral laws, not necessarily caring about helping others.
But to love someone requires more than merely performing right actions. You cannot love someone and not care about who they are as a person and where they are heading in life. To love is to will the good of the other. Jesus chastised the Pharisees of his day for only performing right actions, but not loving their brethren in their hearts. His criticism follows Matthew chapter 22, where Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love. The implication is the Pharisees perform proper actions, but have the wrong motivations for doing so. James Keenan puts it like this:
"Essential to understanding this command is that we love our neighbors not as objects of our devotion, but rather as subjects; that is, as persons. Thus, we cannot love others only because God wants us to do so, since then we would love them as means or as objects and not as persons. We can only love one another as subjects, just as God loves us." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 86)
A critic may bring up that verses of the NT are still phrased as commands, and therefore the structure implies duties were the central aspect of Christian ethics. But the importance of duties is not foreign to Virtue Ethics. Instead of being central to the ethical framework, duties flow from a virtuous character. Virtues are active and have certain demands for which a person must fulfill in their active behavior.
According to Aristotle, knowledge of the virtues gives us practical wisdom in how to properly act. Duties flow from the understanding of the demands of virtues. To put it another way, for virtues to manifest in persons, they have certain demands that must be fulfilled. For the believer, the command of love flows from being virtuous and aligning oneself with the character of God. Commitment to the character of Christ, who perfectly carried out the will of the Father, allows us to perform right and proper actions.
The NT also contains lists of virtues the believer ought to emulate, the most famous of these is in Galatians chapter 5:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (vss. 22-23)
Now, the connection with Aristotle cannot be more pronounced. The Greek phrase "against such there is no law" is almost identical to what we find in Aristotle's politics (3.13.1284a). It seems clear Paul is teaching a similar ethical framework to what Aristotle advocated for. Paul is teaching that the believing community ought to be persons who display key virtues, and that their conduct would not need to be regulated by a law. Instead, their character should be the standard others can measure themselves by. Romans chapter 2 is also a place we see references to Aristotle, where Paul notes that when Gentiles do what the law requires, they are "a law unto themselves" (vss. 14-15). In other words, they do not need to be told to act a certain way. They have the proper virtuous character that directs their actions, to do the good the law requires. Paul is advocating in Galatians that believers should think in a similar way.
So in Galatians 5, we have affinity with the teachings of Aristotle, and in other lists of virtues throughout the NT we see a similar idea, which is that Christians were meant to display virtues primarily (Rom. 5:3-5, 1 Cor. 13:1-8, Col. 3:12-17, 1 Tim. 3:2-3; 4:7-8, Jam. 3:17-18, 2 Pet. 1:5-8). From that, good deeds will properly manifest in our actions.
Anscombe made a great point on what the focus of ethics should be:
"It would be a great improvement if, instead of 'morally wrong', one always named a genus such as 'untruthful', 'unchaste', 'unjust'. We should no longer ask whether doing something was 'wrong', passing directly from some description of an action to this notion; we should ask whether, e.g., it was unjust; and the answer would sometimes be clear at once." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
Interestingly enough, Paul lays out a similar idea in explaining Christian ethics:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."-Philippians 4:8-9

In other words, the central aspect on living a Christian life was on what is virtuous, not on what is lawfully right or wrong. Right actions flow from whatever is honorable, true, and pure. Correlating with this is how Paul responds to the Corinthians who claimed that "all was lawful." Paul reminded them the emphasis is not on what is lawful, but on what is good for building a virtuous character:

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."-1 Corinthians 10:23

One's main focus ought to be on what is good, not on laws that dictate behavior.
One of the key aspects of Virtue Ethics is the idea we ought to learn from virtuous teachers and imitate them. A virtuous character is obtained by imitating what a virtuous person does. This parallels a key aspect of Christian ethics. Imitating Christ was (and still is) crucial to living a virtuous life:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"-1 Peter 2:21

Paul says in Romans 8:29 that Christians were predestined "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Jesus often taught his followers to do as he does (Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 6:40; 9:23, John 13:15, 34). Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11: Be ye followers [i.e., imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ" (vs. 1). Hebrews 13:7 says to imitate the faith of the patriarchs. 1st Thessalonians 2:14 says to imitate each other. And jesus taught to imitate the good Samaritan from his parable (Luke 10:37). Imitating virtuous teachers was key for Christian ethics.
Aristotle tended to compare acquiring virtues with that of learning a practical skill, like playing an instrument or learning how to become a builder. Such practical skills are best picked up when trained by a master of that particular skill, because a teacher can always provide more insight through lessons they learn from experience. For example, an expert salesman can provide examples from his experience of what works with specific customers that a sales textbook could never provide. Many professions today require on-the-job training or experience before even hiring an applicant. The reason is: experience is key to learning a profession. Merely acquiring knowledge from a textbook or an instruction manual is often insufficient to master a skill, so why would mastering the skill of virtue be any different?
In the NT, a believer is to see the world through the eyes of Christ and to love as he loved. One cannot learn how to be a virtuous person without knowing what that life would look like. A key component of Christian theology is that the Messiah perfectly represented the Father and His will on earth, to show us how to properly live as God intended for man. This central tenet of the NT aligns well with agent-based theories of Virtue Ethics, and modifies it so that the person of Jesus Christ is the universal exemplar that one is meant to emulate. We are called to imitate him through our actions, thoughts, and desires, and to conform ourselves to the way he lived. As Paul said:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."-Galatians 2:20

If learning from Christ is key, we should briefly take a look at the Sermon on the Mount, which is said to be one of Jesus' most important series of teachings. Daniel Harrington notes:
"The sermon begins with nine 'beatitudes' (see 5:3–12) in which Jesus declares as 'happy' or 'blessed' those who practice certain virtues, and promises them an eternal reward and the fullness of God's kingdom." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 62)
Jesus laid out what a life for those that follow him look like in detail. One ought to be merciful, pure in heart, a peacemaker, thirst for righteousness, etcetera (Matt. 5:2-10). The Sermon does not merely include what right actions are, but includes sections on proper desires. Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder or wish ill on someone (Matt. 5:22). Avoiding adultery is good, but one also should not covet after another man's woman in their heart (Matt. 5:28). In other words, merely avoiding immoral actions is not enough. One must also not desire vices. A believer is called to desire what is good.
The Sermon is not necessarily laying down universal moral commands. For example, Matthew 5:9 says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," but this doesn't imply absolute Pacifism, as it would contradict passages in the Old Testament where it explicitly says there is a time for war (Ecc. 3:8). The point of the Sermon is to teach what a virtuous life ought to look like. A follower of Christ ought to use reason to know what is proper to do in various circumstances. For example, in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus offers guidance on how one ought to pray by presenting the Lord's prayer (vss. 9-15). This is a model of how to pray. It's not a command for followers to always pray in this exact way.
In reality, the Sermon on the Mount mixes in exhortations, parables, hyperbole, declarations, commands, etc. It is best understood as displaying what a virtuous life ought to look like. It's not a law code. Building on this, it's important to understand a proper action is context sensitive. Under Virtue Ethics, one should not necessarily apply a universal maxim to every situation. Sometimes the proper action will depend on what is at stake, who is involved, what is the background, etc. Aristotle advocated against the idea there were fixed universal laws that dictate actions, and instead he argued the right action would depend on the circumstances one finds themselves in. Although the ethics of the NT may be a bit more strict, it still places an emphasis on being sensitive to the context of situations.
In 1st Corinthians chapter 8, Paul lays out instructions on how to deal with meat that has been sacrificed to Pagan idols. Instead of stating an absolute prohibition against meat sacrificed to idols, Paul instructed Christians to use reason to come to the proper ethical decision based on context. In other words, the right action is not determined only by a law. Instead, the Christian had to make the proper decision based on the context: if eating caused another to stumble, then you ought to abstain; if not, then there's no harm done. The value of the action depends on the context.
A Deontologist might reply that there's still a universal law given here: that one should always abstain if it's going to cause another to stumble. This objection can be addressed by asking: how are we to know if eating the meat will cause another believer to stumble? To answer such a question, one must be sensitive to the context, which in this case would be knowledge of the fellow believer and your relation to him. It is the context that determines the right action, not a universal law. Moreover, Paul states that the primary goal for the believer should be to love (1 Cor. 13). The first consideration is once again not the rightness of action, but having love for one another. From this, knowledge of the proper action will follow.
Paul often explains that living a proper life as a believer will take work and practice. He reminded Timothy to attend readings, practice what these things mean, and keep a close watch on himself (1 Tim. 4:13-14). Elsewhere, he directs that all believers must work on their faith (Phili. 2:12). Beyond this, he also noted that not all Christians would have the same gifts, and to accept that this was normal (1 Cor. 12). For some, certain things may be a hindrance, whereas for others it is acceptable (Rom. 14:2-4). What matters is that we love and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11). Right actions flow from love and knowledge of virtue. Rules are not the primary motives that dictate our actions; rules are secondary in this regard.
An interesting case can be studied with regards to divorce in the Gospels. Jesus preaches against divorce (Mark 10:7-9) and it is often interpreted to mean "divorce is always wrong, regardless of circumstances." However, it should be noted the prohibition on divorce is not a universal law. The context can affect whether or not a divorce is permissible. Jesus says that one can divorce over sexual immorality. Paul also has a situation where divorce is permissible, namely if one spouse is an unbeliever and wishes to leave (1 Cor. 7:15). The implication one can derive is divorce is not ideal, but there are circumstances where it may be the proper action to take. Given the other features of Christian Virtue Ethics we already covered, the proper action to take will depend on the circumstances and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do. A universal prohibition on divorce is not a Christian ethic. Instead, one ought to discern the proper action from circumstances. However, it's clear in most cases divorce would not be the virtuous thing to do.
Building on this, it's important to note that within NT ethics, certain acts are always wrong. For example, idolatry and sexual immorality are always wrong (1 Cor. 10:14, Col. 3:15, 1 Pet. 4:13). There are no possible scenarios where it would be okay to rape, because such an act would never flow from a virtuous character. But this concept is not foreign to theories of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle noted that for some actions, no qualifications could make them virtuous. Actions such as rape or murder are always wrong, because they would never flow from a virtuous character. So it's not as if a Virtue Ethicist cannot claim that some actions are always wrong. They simply are qualified as being unable to flow from virtue, whereas actions like lying or waging war could be considered virtuous for the right reason.
Now, despite Christian Virtue Ethics having many similarities with Eudaimonism (Aristotelian ethics), there are also numerous differences beyond what we've already noted. One of the deficiencies of how Aristotle lays out his ethical theory is that it is essentially an all-boys club. Aristotle writes mainly to aristocratic men, excluding women and slaves. In his view, women were inferior to men and slaves lacked the necessary rational faculty. But the Christians rejected this mentality, as the teachings of Christ and the apostles were available to all (Matt. 28:19). Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Peter wrote that all Christians were part of the priesthood of Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus had women followers (Luke 8:2-3), and they were entrusted with delivering revelation (Mark 15:40–16:8). What we find throughout the NT is a radical change to how women were viewed in the ancient world. Paul is also likely building on Aristotle's household structure and refining it. David deSilva says the household codes of the NT are "...following the pairs laid out as early as Aristotle to such a degree as to suggest that these were standard topics in ethical instruction" (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 231). But Paul adds an important preface: submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:20-21). DeSilva says:
"...husbands, we cannot then ignore the distinctively Christian addition they bring to this arrangement; husbands are to be subject to their wives as well." (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 233)
Thus Paul doesn't break down the traditional perspective on the structure of the family, but he does add the idea that we all must submit to each other in reverence, love, unity, and cooperation because all are equal before God. There is no explicit mention in the NT calling for the abolishment of slavery, but it should be noted that Paul taught that slaves should be seen as equals. In the letter to Philemon, Paul is clear that his slave is no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved" (vs. 16). Thus, within Christian ethics class distinctions were supposed to evaporate. All were brothers and sisters of one family.
An important aspect of Christian ethics is that it wasn't a standalone ethical theory. It's embedded in the larger Christian worldview. The ethical framework is dependent on Christian doctrines. For Aristotle, his ethical theory is for men who were raised well. This is why these specific men desire to be virtuous and perform right actions. As for why the believer does good and desires to be virtuous, it's not because one was raised well, but because they have been activated by the power of God's Spirit (John 3:6, 1 Cor. 12:13). For believers, the reason as to why we desire to be good and virtuous is because the Spirit of God has regenerated us. He loves us so we can love others (1 John 4:19). One is meant to look to the life of Christ and what he has done by dying on the cross, to know that we are loved and forgiven. This in turn is meant to activate a good life, having seen what we have gained and been forgiven of. He calls and activates us to do similar to those around us. This is a more open system for people of all groups and classes. One only has to call upon the name of the Lord to be included. It does not require a specific gender or to be raised a certain way.
The goal of Aristotelian ethics is to achieve 'eudaimonia.' However, within the Bible the goal is as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." Since the central aspect of Biblical Eschatology is that humans will continue on forever in resurrected bodies, the aim of ethics is more than living a good life presently. Living a good life now is important, but it was only one aspect in the Christian worldview. Humans are meant to live beyond this life, so the aim is also about building virtuous souls that will continue on. The importance of this is more crucial than it may seem at first. Paul said that we must all appear before judgment, so that "every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 15:10).
Being a virtuous person requires integrity, because one will still have to answer to God after death. If one can commit an evil act and no one finds out, then from the outside perspective he or she may still appear virtuous. Culturally speaking, the ancient world was very different from our own. All wrongdoings centered around public honor and shame. One did good to receive public honor, and one did not do what was bad to receive public shame. Right and wrong were connected to one's public honor and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Thus good and evil were public ideas, not personal ideas. Ethical demands were grounded in the community in one's public appearance
The Biblical idea of an omniscient God who cared about our ethical status laid a foundation for integrity and personal guilt to emerge. Now one ought to do good because he is beholden to God, not just the community. Believers are to remain focused on God's approval and on the actions that lead them, regardless of the world's response. This lays down fertile ground for integrity to emerge. So the Biblical worldview has another important element built in that encourages ethical behavior, regardless of the honor it brings. One ought to do good because of a commitment to God not, because it might bring honor to one's name publicly.

Implications for Preterists

Paul believed that the Second Coming would happen in his generation, and prescribed certain things in the NT on the basis of that belief. An example of an exhortation that would no longer apppy to us today would be 1st Corinthians 7:24-29, where Paul argues that the times him and his fellow Christians were in called for celibacy, being that the Lord was fast approaching. It wasn't a sin if you did get married, of course; it was just harder to serve the Lord in this context if you had a family to worry about. Thus, Paul encouraged being single.
So, we need to be careful when reading the NT and determining what prohibitions or exhortations are still applicable to us today. Context is key.

This is the place for people to share, voice opinions, ask for advice, and connect about almost anything and everything, both related to the experience of secondary infertility and not, that is not directly connected to the acts of trying to conceive (e.g., tracking, testing, treatment, results, etc.). Things like parenting advice, difficulties with age gap, insensitive comments you had to endure, job stress, partner interactions, how you find rest and relaxation, and so much more.
The idea for this daily compared to our other daily (Trying, Tracking, and Treatment Daily Thread) is that there is always a place for members of our community to engage and interact that doesn't require exposure to TTC content. There are many situations why people struggling with secondary may need a break from such content, such as being medically benched, miscarriage, stopped trying to add to their families, and just experienced success, and whether you need a break or not, here's the thread for things you want to connect about that is TTC-free. Let's chat!

In recent years, HTML and WYSIWYG technologies have been among the biggest changes in web development. By facilitating visual revision and connecting the technical domain of code with the intuitive domain of web development, this technology renders the process more accessible and conducive to collaboration.
In the past, web development was predominantly dependent on programmers who used HTML code to construct websites line by line meticulously. Despite providing granular control, this method posed a substantial obstacle for non-technical users. Conversely, the advent of WYSIWYG editors has facilitated the accessibility of web development by enabling users to visually modify their creations, thereby promoting a more intuitive user experience.
This guide will examine the impact of the conversion from HTML to WYSIWYG on web development practices. We will discuss how this technology helps developers and content makers by making the workflow more efficient and team-based.

Understanding HTML to WYSIWYG Conversion

Progression toward WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editors resulted in a paradigm shift in web development. In contrast to the conventional method of creating websites line by line through HTML code, these tools present a noticeable departure.
Visually intuitive interfaces, including tools, icons, and menus, which accurately represent the ultimate webpage layout, are the primary focus of WYSIWYG editors. By doing so, content creators and marketers can actively engage in the web development process without requiring extensive code knowledge.
Nevertheless, WYSIWYG editors possess capabilities that extend beyond their visual imagery. A complex conversion procedure exists beneath the surface. The software effortlessly converts user inputs (such as text or images) into corresponding segments of HTML code as the user interacts with the editor.
Determining the webpage’s structure and visual presentation, this code functions as the page’s foundation. For example, if a person adds a paragraph with bold text and an image, the WYSIWYG editor translates it to the following HTML code

 Example of HTML generated by a WYSIWYG editor 
 This is a bold text.
  
 

This code is then interpreted by the web browser, which proceeds to render the content exactly as intended. Critically bridging the gap between the intuitive realm of visual editing and the underlying code that regulates the web, WYSIWYG editors serve as an intermediary between the two.

Why Embrace HTML to WYSIWYG?

In the realm of contemporary web development, converting existing HTML into a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) format offers compelling advantages in accessibility, efficiency, and team collaboration. Let’s delve deeper into why this transformation is a smart move:

Accessibility and Efficiency

Before the rise of WYSIWYG editors, crafting web pages often required in-depth HTML knowledge. Consider this simple example:
HTML

Welcome to My Website!
 This is where the magic happens.
 

WYSIWYG editors empower individuals without extensive coding experience. They provide user-friendly interfaces for content creation and formatting. This democratizes the web development process, allowing content creators, marketers, and designers to actively contribute.

Real-time Previews and Streamlined Workflow

Let’s imagine you’re making layout changes with traditional HTML:

Image Here
 
Main Content
 

Using a WYSIWYG editor, you can visually adjust elements and get instant feedback. This eliminates the need for repeated coding, previewing, and revision — saving valuable time and effort.

Enhanced Collaboration

WYSIWYG editors foster a shared visual language. Designers can express ideas without extensive coding knowledge, making it easier for developers to translate those ideas into working code. Additionally, content creators can directly populate layouts:

• Designer: Visually creates a hero section with a compelling image and headline.
• Developer: Implements the structure using clean, semantic HTML.
• Content Writer: Seamlessly adds engaging copy within the WYSIWYG editor.

HTML to WYSIWYG conversion isn’t about eliminating code; it’s about streamlining the web development process, making it more inclusive and efficient. By embracing this approach, teams can build better websites, faster.

Choosing the Right HTML to WYSIWYG Tool

Choosing the best HTML to WYSIWYG conversion tool depends on recognizing characteristics that meet your workflow and project needs. Here’s a detailed checklist of critical capabilities to emphasize during your evaluation process:
FeatureDescriptionCustomization Options

• Ability to customize the editing interface (toolbar layout, keyboard shortcuts).
• Create and implement project-specific content modules or drag-and-drop pieces.
• Integration of third-party plugins for specialist functionality.

Compatibility

• Seamless integration with various Content Management Systems (CMS) platforms for hassle-free deployment.

Modern Web Standards

• Following HTML5 and CSS3 standards ensures code quality and future-proofs web development projects.
• Optimized website display across devices and screen sizes using responsive design.

Ease of Integration

• Simple installation with minimal settings.
• An intuitive interface that reduces learning time, especially for non-coders.

Support and Community

• Effective technical assistance and troubleshooting channels.
• Resourceful online community forum with tutorials and user-generated solutions.

Optimizing the WYSIWYG Editor Usage

Here are some tips to streamline your workflow and maximize your editing speed within a WYSIWYG editor:

• Use keyboard shortcuts: Most editors have shortcuts for common activities, dramatically improving editing speed.
• Use built-in formatting tools: Use bold, italics, headings, and bullet points to format your material efficiently.
• Clean up: Remove any unneeded parts or code generated by the editor to keep your code clean and efficient.

Troubleshooting Common Issues

Even with user-friendly interfaces, problems can occur when using WYSIWYG editors. Here are some tips for troubleshooting typical issues:

• Unexpected formatting: If the formatting appears irregular, check that you are not mistakenly nesting styles or employing conflicting choices.
• Image display issues: Double-check image paths and file sizes to avoid broken links and delayed loading times.
• Limited responsiveness: Test your WYSIWYG-generated content on various devices to ensure it displays properly on all screen sizes.

An Overview of Advanced WYSIWYG Editor

The ideal HTML to WYSIWYG conversion tool finds the optimal blend of usability and strong capabilities. Consider solutions that provide users with a clean visual editing experience while also allowing them to customize the editor to their requirements.
Several top WYSIWYG editors excel in these categories. Froala is one such case. This powerful tool has a user-friendly interface, allowing intuitive content development, even for those with limited coding skills. Furthermore, Froala offers considerable customization options, allowing developers to tailor the editor’s interface, functionality, and content modules to fit smoothly into their existing workflows and project requirements.

Conclusion

These simple solutions enable a wider spectrum of people to participate in content creation, resulting in a more collaborative and efficient development process. Teams that embrace the power of WYSIWYG conversion may streamline workflows, shorten development cycles, and produce richer, more engaging web experiences. Explore innovative solutions such as Froala to maximize the benefits of HTML to WYSIWYG conversion and change your web development efforts.
This post was originally published on the Froala blog.

Hey Everyone,
I hope everyone is doing well and preparing well for CAT2024.
Let me brief about my profile. I have scored 83.6% in 10th Board and 71.6 % in 12th , due to which I wasn't eligible for admission in Engineering College ( NIT and IIT). So, I took a year drop and gave my 12th improvement exam. I scored 86% in 12th improvement exam. Currently , I have 2.8 years of work ex. In IT.
Can anyone please guide, is it good idea to consider my 12th Improvement marks for future admission process in MBA Colleges (FMS, BLACKI or top 20 colleges)? Or should I put my actual 12th Board marks??
I hope someone in the group can help me out from this.